Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By SowZ37
  • 1 Post By Paleoichneum
  • 1 Post By John Galt

Thread: The Evolution of the Eye

  1. #1 The Evolution of the Eye 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    It is my understanding that since the eye evolved underwater, it is best suited to vision underwater. It has since adapted so that our eyes work better in air than water, of course, but certain fundamental aspects in its design make it less than ideal on land. So basic to the function of the eye are some of these weaknesses that a creature would have to first lose the genes to grow eyes entirely and re-evolve the ability from scratch in order to lose said weaknesses. This would of course be massively disadvantageous in the short and medium term to the vast majority of animals, so would rarely if ever happen. Eyes that have evolved with those fundamental aspects altered are, as far as I am aware, relegated entirely to the insect world where the assumptions are different than larger animals. But if we instead supposed that the first creatures to walk on land were blind ones, and we assumed they were able to survive anyway, that no other sighted sea creatures interrupted the process by crawling onto land to outcompete the blind animals, and that the phenomena of sight still adapted as opposed to another sense overtaking it entirely, how might the mammalian eye differ from the one that exists today, (supposing of course mammals still evolved relatively similar to how they are now?)

    Or is my fundamental premise flawed?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree LuciDreaming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    660
    I'm not an expert so I may be wrong but I believe the eye evolved more than once, not just underwater. See the Map of Life


    "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh" Nietzsche.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by LuciDreaming View Post
    I'm not an expert so I may be wrong but I believe the eye evolved more than once, not just underwater. See the Map of Life
    As far as I understand it, it has gone under a number of major evolutions and changes but the mammalian eye is still based on the underwater eye and still carries some of its weaknesses, (that wouldn't have been weaknesses before it evolved.) Other eyes that evolved on land, as far as I know of course, are relegated to insects or similarly small lifeforms. And these eyes generally look pretty different than the eye mammals and many fish have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman Pongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Scotland UK
    Posts
    48
    Interesting question and it got me thinking.
    I have nothing to contribute re the evolution of the eye itself but by coincidence I am reading 'God is Not Great' at the moment by Chris (quite possibly burning in Hell now) Hitchens.
    He makes a useful point where he describes in an argument against religion where he suggests the human eye as being far from perfect in that it projects upside down and back to front. By this argument he suggests that the eye rather being perfect and perfectly created by God has actually got inbuilt faults.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Would limbs or body density act as good analogies?

    One could say that because limbs originally developed underwater, that they are best suited for underwater use and certain fundamental aspects in their design make them less than ideal on land. Specifically, that limbs were never meant to support weight, but only to propel.

    One could say that because body density originally developed underwater, that it is best suited for underwater use and certain fundamental aspects in its design make it less than ideal on land. Specifically, that the body was neutrally buoyant in water and most definitely not so in air.

    The only fundamental aspect of the mammalian eye that is less than perfect on land that I can think of is its exposure to the environment, and thus, it must be kept wet. Compare the eye of crustaceans which, in this sense, seems ideally suited to dry environments as well as wet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    ... the human eye as being far from perfect in that it projects upside down and back to front.
    I understand the "upside down" characteristic due to the eye's simple optics, and I assume the back-to-front characteristic involves actually receiving the light with the back of the retina and that the neuronal pathways run forward before combining to form the optic nerve, which then connects to the brain.

    I think more complex optics in order to see "upside right" in any environment is an unnecessary complexity as is the ability to see "front to back" in any environment.

    I don't understand the imperfectness of "upside down" or "back to front". Also, not being able to see 360 or not being able to see other regions of the EM spectrum could also be called far from perfect.

    I guess I don't understand a "perfect" vision system.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    I will, note that arthropod eyes also evolved underwater and thus are no more "suited" to land then vertebrate eyes.

    Can you give us some examples of what a terrestrial weakness is for the vertebrate eye?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    The fact that our eyes are so reliant on/made up of water supposedly means every image we see is distorted by both air and water, and an eye where the image need not pass through fluid would be clearer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    The eye does not have water in the H2O only sense. The area front of the lens has aqueous humor, (a mixture of things including water. and the area behind the eye has the vitreous humor. The focusing mechanisms of the eye remove major distortions in the main focal area.

    And "supposidly" means you are getting this information from somewhere. What is your source?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    The eye does not have water in the H2O only sense. The area front of the lens has aqueous humor, (a mixture of things including water. and the area behind the eye has the vitreous humor. The focusing mechanisms of the eye remove major distortions in the main focal area.

    And "supposidly" means you are getting this information from somewhere. What is your source?
    Neil DeGrasse Tyson was talking about it, but he is an astrophysicist. Not a biologist. I haven't found any other source, I wish he had mentioned his. I'm curious that if he is correct, what would a better eye look like? I don't necessarily buy it, but I still wonder what the other eye would look like. So I am sort of playing Devil's Advocate here, as much as I can with a small amount of information.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    He just hosts Cosmos. There are other people who collaborate on the content.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    He just hosts Cosmos. There are other people who collaborate on the content.
    Sure, I understand. I'm sure it was a biologist who told him that. But I still don't know who this biologist was, so the only scientist I know of who advocates this view is Tyson. So that is the only source I can give. I would love to know of others that believe it. If this view on the eye is correct, though, it would mean there is a better potential eye. That piques my curiosity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    im not sure what is mean by a "better" eye.

    It is important to remember, the primary focus of comos is to get ratings, and then to inform. T Thus, statements are often made to sound more impressive then the consulting scientists would like them to be or had actually made.

    The vertebrate eye hs a huge spectrum of functionality and acuity in the subphylum so its hard to say what is a problem or not.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    im not sure what is mean by a "better" eye.

    It is important to remember, the primary focus of comos is to get ratings, and then to inform. T Thus, statements are often made to sound more impressive then the consulting scientists would like them to be or had actually made.

    The vertebrate eye hs a huge spectrum of functionality and acuity in the subphylum so its hard to say what is a problem or not.
    Sure. What I gathered from it is that, should the eye have evolved entirely above water instead of below water first and then adapted to above water, it would see more clearly in air.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Its highly speculative at best, and there is no data suggesting any sort of optimum. every species has a different eye. With differences in visual acuity and color acuity. So its not accurate to say the vertebrate eye is bad.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    The fact that our eyes are so reliant on/made up of water supposedly means every image we see is distorted by both air and water, and an eye where the image need not pass through fluid would be clearer.
    Most of our body is water; the eye is no different.

    This is a great argument against creationism, by the way. It would be very easy to design a better eye, in many respects.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    The fact that our eyes are so reliant on/made up of water supposedly means every image we see is distorted by both air and water, and an eye where the image need not pass through fluid would be clearer.
    Most of our body is water; the eye is no different.This is a great argument against creationism, by the way. It would be very easy to design a better eye, in many respects.
    Except I haven't been able to find any real evidence for it other than cosmos' claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman Pongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Scotland UK
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Would limbs or body density act as good analogies?

    One could say that because limbs originally developed underwater, that they are best suited for underwater use and certain fundamental aspects in their design make them less than ideal on land. Specifically, that limbs were never meant to support weight, but only to propel.

    One could say that because body density originally developed underwater, that it is best suited for underwater use and certain fundamental aspects in its design make it less than ideal on land. Specifically, that the body was neutrally buoyant in water and most definitely not so in air.

    The only fundamental aspect of the mammalian eye that is less than perfect on land that I can think of is its exposure to the environment, and thus, it must be kept wet. Compare the eye of crustaceans which, in this sense, seems ideally suited to dry environments as well as wet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    ... the human eye as being far from perfect in that it projects upside down and back to front.
    I understand the "upside down" characteristic due to the eye's simple optics, and I assume the back-to-front characteristic involves actually receiving the light with the back of the retina and that the neuronal pathways run forward before combining to form the optic nerve, which then connects to the brain.

    I think more complex optics in order to see "upside right" in any environment is an unnecessary complexity as is the ability to see "front to back" in any environment.

    I don't understand the imperfectness of "upside down" or "back to front". Also, not being able to see 360 or not being able to see other regions of the EM spectrum could also be called far from perfect.

    I guess I don't understand a "perfect" vision system.
    I think Hitchin's is referring to and pointing out that in the creation narrative where everything is created perfectly is untrue and it although works could have been made to function more easier.
    he also mentions the fact that he (God) also appears to have created a better writer than himself -say Shakespeare for instance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    I will, note that arthropod eyes also evolved underwater and thus are no more "suited" to land then vertebrate eyes. Can you give us some examples of what a terrestrial weakness is for the vertebrate eye?
    I meant that the vertebrate eye is physically exposed to the environment, so the eyeball in its socket needs to be washed and lubricated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    ...the creation narrative where everything is created perfectly is untrue and it although works could have been made to function more easier.
    The Judeo-Christian creation narrative doesn't involve perfect creations.

    Besides, to ancient humans, the abundant similarities in the design among humans and many other species (specifically mammals, but also reptilian, amphibian, fish, etc) is so obvious that ancient humans (regardless of religious beliefs) pretty much had to have realized the same basic designs (musculoskeletal, digestive, pulmonary, circulatory, nervous, reproductive, etc) among many supposedly different creations.

    That is, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that humans are not a completely different creation than monkeys, which are not a completely different creation than lions, which are not a completely different creation than elephants, which are not a completely different creation than cattle, which are not a completely different creation than lizards, etc, etc.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman Pongo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Scotland UK
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    I will, note that arthropod eyes also evolved underwater and thus are no more "suited" to land then vertebrate eyes. Can you give us some examples of what a terrestrial weakness is for the vertebrate eye?
    I meant that the vertebrate eye is physically exposed to the environment, so the eyeball in its socket needs to be washed and lubricated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    ...the creation narrative where everything is created perfectly is untrue and it although works could have been made to function more easier.
    The Judeo-Christian creation narrative doesn't involve perfect creations.

    Besides, to ancient humans, the abundant similarities in the design among humans and many other species (specifically mammals, but also reptilian, amphibian, fish, etc) is so obvious that ancient humans (regardless of religious beliefs) pretty much had to have realized the same basic designs (musculoskeletal, digestive, pulmonary, circulatory, nervous, reproductive, etc) among many supposedly different creations.

    That is, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that humans are not a completely different creation than monkeys, which are not a completely different creation than lions, which are not a completely different creation than elephants, which are not a completely different creation than cattle, which are not a completely different creation than lizards, etc, etc.

    'The Judeo-Christian creation narrative doesn't involve perfect creations.'

    on this much I do not see an argument as Hitchens mentions this in one of the chapters in his book in the case against Intelligent design.
    but then again as he says If you were the Lord God of all things would you really build in defects as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    I will, note that arthropod eyes also evolved underwater and thus are no more "suited" to land then vertebrate eyes. Can you give us some examples of what a terrestrial weakness is for the vertebrate eye?
    I meant that the vertebrate eye is physically exposed to the environment, so the eyeball in its socket needs to be washed and lubricated.
    As are arthropod eyes, and they require a large amount of time devoted to cleaning of the individual lenses.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    The fact that our eyes are so reliant on/made up of water supposedly means every image we see is distorted by both air and water, and an eye where the image need not pass through fluid would be clearer.
    Most of our body is water; the eye is no different.This is a great argument against creationism, by the way. It would be very easy to design a better eye, in many respects.
    Except I haven't been able to find any real evidence for it other than cosmos' claim.
    Then you're not looking very hard.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    The fact that our eyes are so reliant on/made up of water supposedly means every image we see is distorted by both air and water, and an eye where the image need not pass through fluid would be clearer.
    Most of our body is water; the eye is no different.This is a great argument against creationism, by the way. It would be very easy to design a better eye, in many respects.
    Except I haven't been able to find any real evidence for it other than cosmos' claim.
    Then you're not looking very hard.
    Please prove to me that the human eye would work better if it were made of less data. If it is that easy, it shouldn't be too hard to produce that for me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    The fact that our eyes are so reliant on/made up of water supposedly means every image we see is distorted by both air and water, and an eye where the image need not pass through fluid would be clearer.
    Most of our body is water; the eye is no different.This is a great argument against creationism, by the way. It would be very easy to design a better eye, in many respects.
    Except I haven't been able to find any real evidence for it other than cosmos' claim.
    Then you're not looking very hard.
    Please prove to me that the human eye would work better if it were made of less data. If it is that easy, it shouldn't be too hard to produce that for me.
    "made of less data"? That makes no biological sense
    Flick Montana likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    I tried to say water. Autocorrect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    Ironical if the eyes evolved under water; seeing as keeping my eyes open under water is impossible.

    Dont know about you people, but opening my eyes under water (salt or fresh) is so painful that I can only do it for a few seconds.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    Hitchens [...] says If you were the Lord God of all things would you really build in defects as well.
    The mainstream Christian view is that this is an imperfect world (ie, not heaven) and that so-called "defects" are inevitable. Personally, some human "defects" that come to my mind are that we can't fly, we can't normally see in ultraviolet, and we have a huge appetite for carbohydrates.

    It seems that any substance within the eyeball makes it "imperfect", and the only "perfect" eyeball interior would be a vacuum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    As are arthropod eyes, and they require a large amount of time devoted to cleaning of the individual lenses.
    I'm sorry, I didn't mean "washed" in the sense of cleansing; "flushed" is closer to what I meant. I don't know but I think that arthropod eyes don't require flushing or lubrication; however, I know that jumping spider compound eyes do move around internally to change field of view slightly and, I think, focusing. Being a wasp yourself, perhaps you would know more about arthropod eyes. BTW, what substance is within arthropod eyes?

    This subject reminds me of a wasp washing its face, and a bunny washing its face very similar! I never heard of convergent evolution of behavior, but this would be an example.

    (PS Many Christians don't have a problem with evolution ... the creation of the animals had to happen somehow.)
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    I tried to say water. Autocorrect.
    I don't think that is the claim being made.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree DianeG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    504
    Doesn't the fluid inside eyeballs, the aqueous and vitreous humour, serve to transfer oxygen and glucose to the rest of the eye through diffusion? Otherwise you need a capillary bed that you can't see through.

    If I were going to design a better eye, it would be one with more regenerative or repair capacity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    I tried to say water. Autocorrect.
    I don't think that is the claim being made.
    My initial proposal, based on what I'd heard, was that the eye is sub-optimal for above water sight since it evolved underwater and distorts air vision with too much liquid. I supported it as a Devil's Advocate for a bit, then abandoned it unless someone could provide evidence because I couldn't find any.

    You said that if I had no evidence for it, I wasn't looking for it. Implying it is fairly basic. It's possible you misunderstood my point, so I'm guessing that is the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    Doesn't the fluid inside eyeballs, the aqueous and vitreous humour, serve to transfer oxygen and glucose to the rest of the eye through diffusion? Otherwise you need a capillary bed that you can't see through.

    If I were going to design a better eye, it would be one with more regenerative or repair capacity.
    But such an eye would require more energy, I would think, and a mechanism to know when to regenerate quickly and when not to. (Our skin screws that up sometimes, I would imagine an eye going into repairing overdrive at the wrong time could be even worse.) It would be nice if all of our organs regenerated better, but that may not increase our survivability overall. We'd need to eat more, for one.

    Not rejecting your proposal outright. Just pointing out things that strike me as maybe being sub-optimal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Delete double post, please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Most of our body is water; the eye is no different.This is a great argument against creationism, by the way. It would be very easy to design a better eye, in many respects.
    Except I haven't been able to find any real evidence for it other than cosmos' claim.
    Simple one - our retina is backwards. ("Wires" are in the front and get in the way, the light sensitive part is in the back.) This leads to blind spots, detached retinas and reduced overall sensitivity. If our eyes were more like the eyes of an octopus, they'd be better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    My initial proposal, based on what I'd heard, was that the eye is sub-optimal for above water sight since it evolved underwater and distorts air vision with too much liquid. I supported it as a Devil's Advocate for a bit, then abandoned it unless someone could provide evidence because I couldn't find any.
    I thought your comment was suggesting that you can't find evidence outside of the Cosmos claim that the eye evolved underwater and was not suited for land, initially.

    What I got from that episode of Cosmos was simply that, because the eye evolved in water, it did not start out as something suited for life in open air. When Tyson made the comment that nature worked with what it had, whereas a "designer" would have started over with something intended for use in the open air, I simply took it as a jab against ID (again).

    I just want to make sure I'm on the right track so I don't make a fool out of myself discussing the wrong topic here.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Delete double post, please.
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Most of our body is water; the eye is no different.This is a great argument against creationism, by the way. It would be very easy to design a better eye, in many respects.
    Except I haven't been able to find any real evidence for it other than cosmos' claim.
    Simple one - our retina is backwards. ("Wires" are in the front and get in the way, the light sensitive part is in the back.) This leads to blind spots, detached retinas and reduced overall sensitivity. If our eyes were more like the eyes of an octopus, they'd be better.
    Would there be additional complications, though, or reasons that new eye didn't mesh with our brain chemistry as well? Or would the eye take up more energy/be more vulnerable to attack?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    My initial proposal, based on what I'd heard, was that the eye is sub-optimal for above water sight since it evolved underwater and distorts air vision with too much liquid. I supported it as a Devil's Advocate for a bit, then abandoned it unless someone could provide evidence because I couldn't find any.
    I thought your comment was suggesting that you can't find evidence outside of the Cosmos claim that the eye evolved underwater and was not suited for land, initially.

    What I got from that episode of Cosmos was simply that, because the eye evolved in water, it did not start out as something suited for life in open air. When Tyson made the comment that nature worked with what it had, whereas a "designer" would have started over with something intended for use in the open air, I simply took it as a jab against ID (again).

    I just want to make sure I'm on the right track so I don't make a fool out of myself discussing the wrong topic here.
    Looking back on the comments, I can see why you took it that way. I wasn't particularly clear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,972
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Would there be additional complications, though, or reasons that new eye didn't mesh with our brain chemistry as well? Or would the eye take up more energy/be more vulnerable to attack?
    ?? It would just be taking the exact same retina, with the exact same processing, ganglion layer, photoreceptors etc and flipping it around. Same energy, same biochemistry. You would be LESS vulnerable to attack since you would have fewer blind spots.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Would there be additional complications, though, or reasons that new eye didn't mesh with our brain chemistry as well? Or would the eye take up more energy/be more vulnerable to attack?
    ?? It would just be taking the exact same retina, with the exact same processing, ganglion layer, photoreceptors etc and flipping it around. Same energy, same biochemistry. You would be LESS vulnerable to attack since you would have fewer blind spots.
    Sorry, I mean infections and such. I'm not just talking about the photoreceptor thing. I'm talking about an Octopus' eye. You said we would be better off with an eye more similar to an Octopus, so I am just wondering what complications such an eye would have above water. Unless the only real difference between the two eyes that you mean is the receptor thing. I assumed there was a number of things you found more advantageous about an Octopus eye, not just the one you mentioned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Pongo View Post
    By this argument he suggests that the eye rather being perfect and perfectly created by God has actually got inbuilt faults.
    If we were created perfect, doctors wouldn't have a job, no need for doctors to fix anything. That also means no need for medicine, therefore big pharma would go bankrupt. And, there will be no degree or level of diversity, which means no need for moral or ethical purpose in society, therefore no need for philosophers, psychologists, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, or therapists. That also means nobody goes to jail, therefore no need for lawyers and cops and judge to enforce the law. Or better yet, scientists would just be jobless too because there wouldn't be a need for science. In other words, what is the point of being a perfect human being?

    But that's just how I see it. lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by DianeG View Post
    If I were going to design a better eye, it would be one with more regenerative or repair capacity.
    it's why there is need for Technology to do the job. Entropy is necessary in nature but don't we not study science to decrease it or intervene in the process?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Would there be additional complications, though, or reasons that new eye didn't mesh with our brain chemistry as well? Or would the eye take up more energy/be more vulnerable to attack?
    ?? It would just be taking the exact same retina, with the exact same processing, ganglion layer, photoreceptors etc and flipping it around. Same energy, same biochemistry. You would be LESS vulnerable to attack since you would have fewer blind spots.
    Sorry, I mean infections and such. I'm not just talking about the photoreceptor thing. I'm talking about an Octopus' eye. You said we would be better off with an eye more similar to an Octopus, so I am just wondering what complications such an eye would have above water. Unless the only real difference between the two eyes that you mean is the receptor thing. I assumed there was a number of things you found more advantageous about an Octopus eye, not just the one you mentioned.
    Billvon wasn't addressing the water question. He pointed to an obvious complication, that is: the arrangement of our light-receptive cells with their nerves is backward. Imagine if the wires governing your LCD display were in front not behind the screen. Imagine if we could only improve this design by incremental tinkering, each new generation of LCD. Well, if the bundled wires pass back into the monitor through a hole in the screen, we just can't perform the radical all-or-nothing transformation necessary. Our eyes are stuck this way.

    The problem, basically, is that evolution can't take the hole out of a toroid when a) the toroid works best as a disk, and b) something critical passes through the hole. An octopus has the same problem with its esophagus passing though its brain. But its eyes are set up properly, with the nerves behind the photoreceptor cells.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    [An octopus has the same problem with its esophagus passing though its brain.
    I've known people like that. Well, they talked out of their ass, which is much the same thing.
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Eye Dominance
    By d1g174l in forum Links
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 30th, 2009, 01:27 PM
  2. Eye to Eye book, The Science of God
    By Sarah1234 in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: August 28th, 2007, 01:11 AM
  3. The human eye and evolution...You Gotta Wonder
    By soultaco in forum Biology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 8th, 2006, 03:26 PM
  4. the eye
    By goodgod3rd in forum Biology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 30th, 2006, 03:43 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •